No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they laid hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

In Jesus,

Tyrone